We need a six conference structure with relegation and ascension enforced nationally. The "old boys club" has to be a thing of the past. A playoff system should consist of the bottom four ranked of each P6 conference champions playing each other in a quarter-final. The top two ranked teams play the two top ranked G4 teams providing they are not ranked above the other P6 programs.
I don't see why this isn't a perfect opportunity for Aresco to cherry pick a handful of Western programs and close the door on speculation as to what conference can provide compelling entertainment with significant markets.
The AAC has the potential to someday overshadow the big12. What is the combined market of Stillwater OK, Norman OK, Lubbock TX, Manhattan KS, Aimes IA, Waco TX?

golfnut69 wrote:It is now time for the AAC to go forth and kick some ass....add Boise State, Colorado State, BYU, New Mexico....this will force some domino's to fall

That's truly what it will take. The point HAS ZERO to do with whether or not Tulane vs. Tulsa draws more viewers than Kansas vs. Iowa State. It has a whole lot to do about whether Houston vs. Navy (as an example) can draw near the audience that LSU vs. Alabama can. Guess what: right now we're a full decimal point movement behind. There's no compelling argument for OTT or traditional media to pay big bucks for the AAC games. Some of the games draw less than a 1.0 share, few draw more than 2.0. To think that we'll get 50% of the SEC media money is fun to think about, but not realistic.

" For every alum, no matter where they are...I want a football coach that's going to make Saturday something you anticipate and look forward to." --Troy Dannen

Thank you all for your support as my son Zach continues to beat leukemia

golfnut69 wrote:It is now time for the AAC to go forth and kick some ass....add Boise State, Colorado State, BYU, New Mexico....this will force some domino's to fall

That's truly what it will take. The point HAS ZERO to do with whether or not Tulane vs. Tulsa draws more viewers than Kansas vs. Iowa State. It has a whole lot to do about whether Houston vs. Navy (as an example) can draw near the audience that LSU vs. Alabama can. Guess what: right now we're a full decimal point movement behind. There's no compelling argument for OTT or traditional media to pay big bucks for the AAC games. Some of the games draw less than a 1.0 share, few draw more than 2.0. To think that we'll get 50% of the SEC media money is fun to think about, but not realistic.

This is a total red herring, nobody is talking about SEC media money or saying we have the ratings juice to deserve that. But:

1) We deserve more than we're currently getting
2) We deserve to be treated as on an equal playing field with the other P5 schools from a regulatory and scheduling perspective
3) We deserve equal (gauranteed) access to a NY6 bowl.

I don't think anyone is asserting we deserve $30m a year, I don't know why you're taking it there.

golfnut69 wrote:It is now time for the AAC to go forth and kick some ass....add Boise State, Colorado State, BYU, New Mexico....this will force some domino's to fall

That's truly what it will take. The point HAS ZERO to do with whether or not Tulane vs. Tulsa draws more viewers than Kansas vs. Iowa State. It has a whole lot to do about whether Houston vs. Navy (as an example) can draw near the audience that LSU vs. Alabama can. Guess what: right now we're a full decimal point movement behind. There's no compelling argument for OTT or traditional media to pay big bucks for the AAC games. Some of the games draw less than a 1.0 share, few draw more than 2.0. To think that we'll get 50% of the SEC media money is fun to think about, but not realistic.

This is a total red herring, nobody is talking about SEC media money or saying we have the ratings juice to deserve that. But:

1) We deserve more than we're currently getting
2) We deserve to be treated as on an equal playing field with the other P5 schools from a regulatory and scheduling perspective
3) We deserve equal (gauranteed) access to a NY6 bowl.

I don't think anyone is asserting we deserve $30m a year, I don't know why you're taking it there.

Yes, but:

1. ESPN & Co. overpaid for the P5 TV rights
2. To make up for that they will continue to underpay for the G5
3. The alternatives to ESPN may be growing, but they're not going to pay anything close to 1/2 or even 1/3 of what is being paid to the P5 conferences
4. No G5, including the AAC, is going to give the "bang for the buck" that an OTT provider is looking for if/when they get into NCAA football.

It's nice to think that the AAC is up and coming and will get a whole lot more media money when the next contract comes around. Reality speaks louder and our ratings will prevent the AAC from getting anything close to "P5" money.

And guess what: There's no way in hell that the AAC deserves anything close to the B12 or ACC in terms of access to the playoff or New Years 6 games. We're a step below the power conferences, and until we step up, we're on the outside looking in. And taken a "step" further, Tulane is at the bottom of the AAC, so we're two steps away. There's only one way to change that: WIN. And we're NOT YET WINNING any games that matter. We're last in the AAC West. We are what we are until we change that. Probably not happening in 2016.

" For every alum, no matter where they are...I want a football coach that's going to make Saturday something you anticipate and look forward to." --Troy Dannen

Thank you all for your support as my son Zach continues to beat leukemia

Them having UT and OU outweighs all of that. They have mega eyes on their games.

There are no mega eyes on ISU vs KSU, or many other Big XII match ups. From a trending standpoint, I'd like the AAC's odds of gaining eyes, more than where the Big XII orphans are headed. To the orphans' credit, they have many eyes in the stands, but they don't have many eyes beyond that.

Them having UT and OU outweighs all of that. They have mega eyes on their games.

There are no mega eyes on ISU vs KSU, or many other Big XII match ups. From a trending standpoint, I'd like the AAC's odds of gaining eyes, more than where the Big XII orphans are headed. To the orphans' credit, they have many eyes in the stands, but they don't have many eyes beyond that.

Like I said it has UT and OU and we don't. Those two schools and their followings are what cause the networks to pay the exorbitant fees they do. We don't have any school close to that much less two. Furthermore there are none to add that fill that bill. That's the reality of the situation.

Them having UT and OU outweighs all of that. They have mega eyes on their games.

There are no mega eyes on ISU vs KSU, or many other Big XII match ups. From a trending standpoint, I'd like the AAC's odds of gaining eyes, more than where the Big XII orphans are headed. To the orphans' credit, they have many eyes in the stands, but they don't have many eyes beyond that.

Like I said it has UT and OU and we don't. Those two schools and their followings are what cause the networks to pay the exorbitant fees they do. We don't have any school close to that much less two. Furthermore there are none to add that fill that bill. That's the reality of the situation.

And, even though Houston has had great success the last 2 years, everyone is waiting "with bated breath" to see if Tom Herman now bolts to "greener pastures" sending the Cougars back to total mediocrity and an empty TDECU Stadium ("capacity" 40,000).

Here's another issue to consider. From what I've been reading, you get down the line a decade or so and Tier 3 TV rights are going to carry more value than networks. When that happens, the schools like UT, OU, most of the SEC, Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame and the like will still be getting big bucks, because they'll sell their T3 rights, while the T3 rights of the Big 12 orphans and the AAC will be worth a pittance. And the networks won't pay much for T1 rights, because they won't have to.

Them having UT and OU outweighs all of that. They have mega eyes on their games.

There are no mega eyes on ISU vs KSU, or many other Big XII match ups. From a trending standpoint, I'd like the AAC's odds of gaining eyes, more than where the Big XII orphans are headed. To the orphans' credit, they have many eyes in the stands, but they don't have many eyes beyond that.

Like I said it has UT and OU and we don't. Those two schools and their followings are what cause the networks to pay the exorbitant fees they do. We don't have any school close to that much less two. Furthermore there are none to add that fill that bill. That's the reality of the situation.

Not having UT or OU has nothing to do with what Aresco needs to do to enhance the AAC. It's way too soon to know whether an expanded AAC could get P status, but the odds are much better than the current AAC getting P status. And the likely reality is that the little 7 or 8 of the Big XII aren't going to have UT or OU either, in a few years. And frankly, it probably won't matter for any of the P5 laggards, because as the revenue allocations evolve, the laggards will get less and less. The whole BCS/P6/P5/P4? system has evolved to where we are about to see P5 conferences start to "eat their own". One thing is highly likely, if Aresco does nothing he will leave the AAC much more vulnerable to whatever is coming down the road.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think 16 is just too unwieldy plus the added schools just don't bring much. Just focus the limited resources on the current schools and try and get as much as you can. That will still be a pittance compared to P5's but it's the best that can be hoped for. I get people are trying to think of ways out of this but the door was slammed shut on any meaningful and fruitful changes yesterday.

It hasn’t been pretty on the field for much of the Big 12 this college football season, with dim prospects for getting a team into the College Football Playoff. The league also rates as the worst in the college rankings among the power five conferences, with just Texas (51st) cracking the top 100. Of the 64 major-conference teams, Texas Tech is the only one that isn’t in the top 500. And with the Big 12 considering adding two new members this year, officials have said academic profile is a factor. Among likely candidates, BYU (104th) and Connecticut (110th) would give the conference a boost, while Houston (388th) would not.

Them having UT and OU outweighs all of that. They have mega eyes on their games.

There are no mega eyes on ISU vs KSU, or many other Big XII match ups. From a trending standpoint, I'd like the AAC's odds of gaining eyes, more than where the Big XII orphans are headed. To the orphans' credit, they have many eyes in the stands, but they don't have many eyes beyond that.

Like I said it has UT and OU and we don't. Those two schools and their followings are what cause the networks to pay the exorbitant fees they do. We don't have any school close to that much less two. Furthermore there are none to add that fill that bill. That's the reality of the situation.

And, even though Houston has had great success the last 2 years, everyone is waiting "with bated breath" to see if Tom Herman now bolts to "greener pastures" sending the Cougars back to total mediocrity and an empty TDECU Stadium ("capacity" 40,000).

That could be an interesting point, Pete. Has this gotten to a point where top coaching talent may actually consider lack of conference stability as an issue? I would have thought prior to this that Texas would be his top job, but wouldn't LSU in a rock solid SEC be a better job than Texas in an unstable Big12? Of course, everything is measured in championships and he's got a better chance of that at Texas than he does at LSU, being second fiddle to Saban.

It hasn’t been pretty on the field for much of the Big 12 this college football season, with dim prospects for getting a team into the College Football Playoff. The league also rates as the worst in the college rankings among the power five conferences, with just Texas (51st) cracking the top 100. Of the 64 major-conference teams, Texas Tech is the only one that isn’t in the top 500. And with the Big 12 considering adding two new members this year, officials have said academic profile is a factor. Among likely candidates, BYU (104th) and Connecticut (110th) would give the conference a boost, while Houston (388th) would not.

Avg rank
SEC 283
PAC 12 156
ACC 110
Big 10 107

Wow. Last in academics and last in on-field success--and they decide that the status quo is fine. The status quo is rarely fine for any organization, and the Big XII is the best example of where status quo thinking will take you. As one of you mentioned, it's pretty obvious that ESPN is paying way too much for what the Big XII can deliver. As long as that travesty continues, there is no immediate impetus for the Big XII to change the status quo--just keep milking ESPN and worry about tomorrow, tomorrow. Big XII ought to be renamed the Alfred E. Newman conference--What, me worry?

It hasn’t been pretty on the field for much of the Big 12 this college football season, with dim prospects for getting a team into the College Football Playoff. The league also rates as the worst in the college rankings among the power five conferences, with just Texas (51st) cracking the top 100. Of the 64 major-conference teams, Texas Tech is the only one that isn’t in the top 500. And with the Big 12 considering adding two new members this year, officials have said academic profile is a factor. Among likely candidates, BYU (104th) and Connecticut (110th) would give the conference a boost, while Houston (388th) would not.

Avg rank
SEC 283
PAC 12 156
ACC 110
Big 10 107

Wow. Last in academics and last in on-field success--and they decide that the status quo is fine. The status quo is rarely fine for any organization, and the Big XII is the best example of where status quo thinking will take you. As one of you mentioned, it's pretty obvious that ESPN is paying way too much for what the Big XII can deliver. As long as that travesty continues, there is no immediate impetus for the Big XII to change the status quo--just keep milking ESPN and worry about tomorrow, tomorrow. Big XII ought to be renamed the Alfred E. Newman conference--What, me worry?

Who cares where the academic rankings fall? I know I don't think about such things when I'm deciding which games to watch. If anyone does, please enlighten me. While you're at it, please let me know where you're watching "The Game" (Yale vs. Harvard) this year.

" For every alum, no matter where they are...I want a football coach that's going to make Saturday something you anticipate and look forward to." --Troy Dannen

Thank you all for your support as my son Zach continues to beat leukemia

DrBox wrote:There are about 15 programs that carry the water. Big 12 has 2 and the AAC none. The inequity is that 45 or so non- producers get to share and 60 or so don't.
We can get a better deal than what we have though.

Anyone who was in a good place between 2000 and 2005 got to tag along. Anyone who had a promising program during that time got invited in. Everyone else was playing SERIOUS catch up. Tulane is actually in much better shape than they deserve to be with the AAC. If the AAC can hold it together, they can make a run at significance. The conference rivals the SEC and ACC in competitiveness and is better than the rest. Any AAC team can beat any other on a given day and few conferences can say that. Maybe few saw the Houston-Tulsa game, but those who did, will never forget it. They need more consistent wins against P5's to get into the polls. Once they get there, they become significant.

anEngineer wrote:The conference (AAC) rivals the SEC and ACC in competitiveness and is better than the rest. Any AAC team can beat any other on a given day and few conferences can say that. Maybe few saw the Houston-Tulsa game, but those who did, will never forget it. They need more consistent wins against P5's to get into the polls. Once they get there, they become significant.

Competitiveness vs SEC/ACC, or intra conference?

When competitiveness = consistent wins vs. SEC/ACC, then ok. But saying we can now play a competitive game against the SEC/AAC ranks right up there as a moral victory IMO.

anEngineer wrote:The conference (AAC) rivals the SEC and ACC in competitiveness and is better than the rest. Any AAC team can beat any other on a given day and few conferences can say that. Maybe few saw the Houston-Tulsa game, but those who did, will never forget it. They need more consistent wins against P5's to get into the polls. Once they get there, they become significant.

Competitiveness vs SEC/ACC, or intra conference?

When competitiveness = consistent wins vs. SEC/ACC, then ok. But saying we can now play a competitive game against the SEC/AAC ranks right up there as a moral victory IMO.

It seems like he's saying that the AAC is competitive intra-conference. That's fine and everything, but no one will care unless the AAC consistently has years like last year (i.e. 3+ conference teams going undefeated OOC w/P5 wins). This AAC season is terrible compared to last year and it is not that unlike the Big 12s terrible season this year - the differences are that the Big 12 is in a P5 and 20% of the Big 12 is still completely undefeated while the AAC is in the G5 and has no undefeated teams remaining.

anEngineer wrote:The conference (AAC) rivals the SEC and ACC in competitiveness and is better than the rest. Any AAC team can beat any other on a given day and few conferences can say that. Maybe few saw the Houston-Tulsa game, but those who did, will never forget it. They need more consistent wins against P5's to get into the polls. Once they get there, they become significant.

Competitiveness vs SEC/ACC, or intra conference?

When competitiveness = consistent wins vs. SEC/ACC, then ok. But saying we can now play a competitive game against the SEC/AAC ranks right up there as a moral victory IMO.

I am talking intra-conference competitiveness. There is no consistent Ohio State-Purdue or Oklahoma-Kansas situation in the AAC. That's part of what makes the SEC and ACC fun to watch; anyone is capable of beating anyone else. Some teams might have up or down years but there is no dominance by 1 or 2 teams every year. If the AAC can maintain that element and add P5 wins (to get into the P5-heavy polls), it becomes an attractive product.

anEngineer wrote:I am talking intra-conference competitiveness. There is no consistent Ohio State-Purdue or Oklahoma-Kansas situation in the AAC. That's part of what makes the SEC and ACC fun to watch; anyone is capable of beating anyone else. Some teams might have up or down years but there is no dominance by 1 or 2 teams every year. If the AAC can maintain that element and add P5 wins (to get into the P5-heavy polls), it becomes an attractive product.

To be fair, that's because AAC doesn't have a team that's even remotely consistently the caliber of Ohio State or Oklahoma. Also, the Big 12 seems to be more equal than pretty much any other conference - it had different champ or co-champ every year for 2011-2015 (5 seasons) with a strong possibility of a new champ this year and it doesn't seem like any other conference can claim that level of parity. On the SEC, it seems like Alabama almost consistently dominates the conference - from 2011-2015, only 2 teams other than Alabama won the SEC, and one of the years that Alabama didn't win the SEC champ, it won the national title against the SEC champ (2011 was the Alabama non-SEC champ v. LSU SEC champ national champ game year). The ACC has similar issues with Clemson and FSU - they are the only ACC champs over the 2011-2015 period.